ABSTRACT
This chapter examines two seemingly very different contexts, refugee status determination procedures in the UK and the Decision Review System (DRS) in international cricket. It shows that although the benefit of the doubt should be applied quite differently in these two settings, in practice it is used in very similar ways, to the detriment of many asylum applicants. The 'benefit of the doubt' is a core principle in all common-law systems. When deciding asylum claims, UK Border Agency (UKBA) case owners follow a manual called the Asylum Policy Instructions (APIs). Sweeney noted that although there was much useful advice in the API, it was 'deeply problematic' regarding the role of credibility findings in asylum decision-making. The chapter examines one key difference in principle, the contrast between 'holistic' and 'sequential' reasoning. The decision-making process under DRS therefore contrasts sharply with the process set out by the Court of Appeal for asylum decision-making; it is sequential rather than holistic.
